1. On October 19, 2017, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) on an automobile indicated in the separate sheet.

The main lawsuit and counterclaim are also examined.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From June 1, 200, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded an entrustment management contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with respect to automobiles listed in the separate sheet from around June 1, 200 to the effect that “the Defendant externally vests in the Plaintiff the ownership and the right to manage the instant automobiles, but, inside, the Defendant is entrusted with his own right to manage the instant automobiles from the Plaintiff, thereby running a vehicle leasing transport business under his own independent account.”

B. By August 23, 2017 when the duplicate of the complaint of this case was served, the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff totaling KRW 994,800,00 to the Plaintiff with the admission fee, automobile tax, etc. to be borne by the Defendant under the contract of this case. As such, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay the above admission fee, etc., but failed to receive it, and thus, declared that the contract of this case was terminated on the ground that the Plaintiff did not delay the payment of the admission fee, etc. equivalent to KRW 1,017,100 by the delivery of

C. The Defendant paid KRW 994,800 on September 12, 2017, thereby paying the unpaid land and automobile tax. D.

The Defendant declared to the Plaintiff that the contract of this case is terminated by serving a duplicate of the counterclaim of this case.

[Evidence Evidence: Evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(ii)each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings in Category B(1) to (8)

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. As to the termination of the instant contract and the Defendant’s obligation to take over the procedure for ownership transfer registration, the Plaintiff did not pay the unpaid fees, etc. even though the Defendant was urged by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff terminated the instant contract by serving the duplicate of the complaint. Thus, the Defendant’s duplicate of the complaint concerning the instant automobile from the Plaintiff.